Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RTFC is the New RTFM

jakeradakovich.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#11

Post by jradakov »

tterrace wrote: post #7
tych0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also depends on the language too. In languages with more expressive type systems, you can usually make an educated guess about something based on the type signatures it has. For the dynamic languages, though, reading the code is an absolute must.

It definitely depends on the language. The author mentions spring security so I'm assuming he's using java, where it's a massive PITA to manually hunt down and attach the sources to the 50 jars you have in lib/. Maven probably has something that will automatically do this but if your legacy project is just using ant then you're pretty much stuck.

Java is exactly what I'm using, and you are correct... it is a massive PITA to attach sources. Unfortunately, we're not using Maven but plan to in the future.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#12

Post by kaffeinecoma »

tych0 wrote: post #3
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

I think it also depends on the language too. In languages with more expressive type systems, you can usually make an educated guess about something based on the type signatures it has. For the dynamic languages, though, reading the code is an absolute must.

I agree, and sadly it's way harder to locate relevant bits of code in dynamic languages. (Hey Steve Yegge- can we have Grok now, please?) But even in static languages it's a must for me. I find that Javadoc becomes largely irrelevant if I can just click through to the actual source.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#13

Post by jimmaswell »

kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

I don't look at my libraries' source unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer. that's really going to be your fizzbuzz?

A lot of the time I don't need the docs anyway, I just find what I'm looking for in the iltellisense/other suggestions because the OO model makes this work great.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#14

Post by kaffeinecoma »

tterrace wrote: post #7
tych0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also depends on the language too. In languages with more expressive type systems, you can usually make an educated guess about something based on the type signatures it has. For the dynamic languages, though, reading the code is an absolute must.

It definitely depends on the language. The author mentions spring security so I'm assuming he's using java, where it's a massive PITA to manually hunt down and attach the sources to the 50 jars you have in lib/. Maven probably has something that will automatically do this but if your legacy project is just using ant then you're pretty much stuck.

If you use Intellij + Maven this becomes magically seamless. I assume there is something similar for Eclipse as well. Really worth your time to make this work.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#16

Post by bttf »

gyepi wrote: post #6

I have noticed the increasing paucity of documentation in many open source projects. In the past, this would annoy me when I had to context switch from a perfectly good flow state to a documentation reading state. However, I realized that I was doing it wrong; it meant that I was not spending enough time analyzing the code I was about to "adopt" and depend on for my project. Now, I read the documentation and source c…

I can agree with this. There have been times when I thought I understood the concept of something after reading the documentation, only to find myself gaining a deeper understanding when reading the code.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#17

Post by tterrace »

jradakov wrote: post #11
tterrace wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely depends on the language. The author mentions spring security so I'm assuming he's using java, where it's a massive PITA to manually hunt down and attach the sources to the 50 jars you have in lib/. Maven probably has something that will automatically do this but if your legacy project is just using ant then you're pretty much stuck.

Java is exactly what I'm using, and you are correct... it is a massive PITA to attach sources. Unfortunately, we're not using Maven but plan to in the future.

If you're using eclipse, I found this plugin helps a bit: http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/java-source-attacher . For most popular jars you can just right click and hit "attach source".

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#18

Post by spartango »

This worries me a little, because it cuts against the ideas of abstraction that are central to most software engineering.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against reading the code if and when it is available.

I just worry that reliance on this MO goes against the idea that you can specify a programming interface for your system and people can develop against that without knowing the implementation. This is rather powerful in working with other people, complex systems, and systems that are changing, where reading the code may become inefficient.

I'd push back on the mindset of RTFC by saying that as a developers we should try not to link ourselves to infrastructure for which RTFM fails. I know it biases my search for libraries.

> I realize complaining about the lack of documentation in some open source projects is like complaining that there is no foie gras at a friend’s free dinner party

I'd argue that docs aren't foie gras, and not having them is like having a compile error/obvious segfault in your code. Just like stability, docs matter.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#19

Post by camus »

tych0 wrote: post #3
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

I think it also depends on the language too. In languages with more expressive type systems, you can usually make an educated guess about something based on the type signatures it has. For the dynamic languages, though, reading the code is an absolute must.

strictly typed languages like java are harder to write , but easier to work with (and document ) since one can know what is what , and what a method expects. It's easy to write a hash in JS but harder to understand what parameters are expected when you are using a library that passes hashes as parameters.

That's why i prefer languages with type inference rather than dynamic typing. You can be explicit when you need to and lazy when you want to.

(Excuse my french)

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#20

Post by kaffeinecoma »

jimmaswell wrote: post #13
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

I don't look at my libraries' source unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer. that's really going to be your fizzbuzz? A lot of the time I don't need the docs anyway, I just find what I'm looking for in the iltellisense/other suggestions because the OO model makes this work great.

  unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer
Documentation/googling is definitely the right thing to do off the bat. But if they've never had a moment where they had to peek under the hood (or never thought to try, or didn't know how to) then yes, that's my FizzBuzz. I would perhaps not apply this to someone fresh out of school, but I would expect an experienced candidate to know how to "use the source".
Post reply on HN